Details

Statistics

I want a creationist!

Anyone got any spare ones left? I could use some debating to feel better about myself and am tired of the basic, boring stupid arguments that the average christian/deism/whatever apologist has, I want some real insane arguments.

I'd prefer young earth, but some good old god of the gaps watchmaker type I wouldn't mind either.

Find em, direct em to this post, lemme have fun with em, don't just keep them all to yourselfs, I know you want to keep all their crazytalk to yourself but it's no fair, us european guys get none of the fun, and they do seem to be dying out a bit lately, the more ridiculous and science illiterate they are the better.

And if you are a creationist reading this:Evolution is true.There is no Creator of the universe.Faith is Bullshit.

Though I'm not by definition a Creationist (I believe both creationism and evolution are plausibilities, and I'm known to argue alternately for both.) I am a believer in God.

First off, we have to acknowledge the fact that there are two different basic kinds of evolution in biology: macro and micro. Micro-evolution (which is evolution within the confines of a species) is undoubtable fact in that it has been observed and the theory has been consistent enough with the results of analysis that it can indeed be considered a fact.

Macro-evolution is the theory which serves as the basis of the belief of those who suppose human beings evolved from other species. It operates on the assumption that living organisms can evolve into entirely different species. This phenomenon has never been observed out of the billions of animal species that walk the earth, and only a handful of sporadic "links" have been found that can assume an inter-species evolutionary process, given much scientific assumption (discluding the vast majority of "missing links" that have been proven to be false, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt beyond all ridiculous reason in your favour by saying those were all simply straw-men).

Creationism evolved (lol) from early Judeo-Christian tradition and assumes that God directly created the universe in it's working order - nothing more complex than the snap of one's fingers. In all honesty, there really isn't anything to suggest the theory is inherently wrong or right, though it does sound fantastical to people who don't understand the concept of contingency. The whole premise is that everything was created as-is at some point - therefore it's openly and honestly quite stupid to even bother trying to destroy the concept. The only way of HONESTLY leading away from such a premise is to realize that both are just theories...

I'm not here to argue - I already gave you all you need. When you come face to face with a creationist who isn't a straw-man, and assuming you aren't as bull-headed at that time, you'll be surprised by what you get.

Not, too suprsing? You mean, you didn't know, that if you accept theory of evolution without question you will generally be safe from criticism.

But, did you ever try to push evolutionist to the edge of the cliff for any proof or any evidence? i.e. creature, lacking the genetic information for some major features has turned into a creature with that genetic information.

Do you ever see, that they are quickly run out of examples of where that new information came from? Instead, they tend to resort to sneering, irrelevant claims, verbal abuse, diversions, sarcasm, and even threats...Ahahaahahaaaa.

We have found this pattern consistently and countless others have also experienced it, when they simply ask for scientific proof and evidence of evolution.

Evolution — meaning that such diverse creatures as whales, worms, hummingbirds, hadrosaurs, platypusses and presidents have evolved from the same first life-form — is a belief system. It certainly has not been proved to be a scientific fact.

See, that's your problem. You have all these preconceived notions about problems in the world around you that you REFUSE to understand instead of posing honest questions for honest answers. If you ever did have any intention of learning anything, you didn't learn it with the juvenile attitude you're using now.

I'm not Azebetha but I'm feeling like butting in, hope you don't mind.

Really? They're both theories? And you say you argue on occasion for evolution...

Creationism is a theory in the vulgar sense, as in something someone thought up. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, as in it was throughly tested independently and is yet to find any evidence that it is wrong. Creationism can't even be tested, which automatically disqualifies it from the scientific theory cathegory.

Macroevolution is defined as change on the level of species or above, it is not a theory but a simple classification of degree of change. Creationists try to redefine it as something impossible, that if it were to happen it would do more to disprove evolution than the reverse.

Macroevolution and microevolution are caused by the exact same thing. The difference is that in micro you end up with a population slightly different from the original species, and in macro you end up with a population that is incapable of reproduction with members of the original species while capable to reproduce themselves, a.k.a. a new species. This a matter of degree of change, if you accumulate enough change within a population (micro), there will be a point where the original species and your changed one will not reproduce (macro).

""""Really? They're both theories? And you say you argue on occasion for evolution..."""

Yes, actually, on all three.

"""Creationism is a theory in the vulgar sense, as in something someone thought up. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, as in it was throughly tested independently and is yet to find any evidence that it is wrong. Creationism can't even be tested, which automatically disqualifies it from the scientific theory cathegory."""I'm guessing you've never read "Exploring Creation with Physical Science," "Exploring Creation with Biology," or "Exploring Creation with Chemistry". After reading said three books (highschool-level [though considering the state of our mainstream education, they may be considered college-level in some areas ]) it has become quite clear to me how ignorant many evolutionists are, and similarly, how ignorant many creationists are too. Creationism does have an original basis in an idea - but so does every hypothesis that ever existed that may have become a theory that may have become a scientific law... Creationism can be tested and is just as valid a theory as evolutionism - it is no more fantastical than the concept of the Big Bang theory, other than that it is more "directly" involving in the presence of a Divine Intelligence as opposed to what is often considered "impersonal" evolutionary change due to an explosion that happened long ago.

In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change. The changes that occur are simply the result of variation within that genetic code. In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code. Unless you can point me to a (reliable) source other than wikipedia proving that such a thing has in fact been observed, I have no reason to put my faith in the theory.

Completely regardless of whether or not it has actually happened, there is more than one theory as to how exactly these trans-species adaptations would occur in the first place - in fact there has been a lot of dissension between evolutionists on the topic (as if any hardcore evolutionist wasn't aware). They're all united against creationists of course, but there are quite a few very different and conflicting hypotheses and theories concerning exactly **how** an animal turns into a new species.

In summary - I don't trust theories that are both inconclusive and irrelevant to my religious, moral, or political beliefs. People who want to bite each other's heads off over the issue can go ahead and do so; I just wanted to take the opportunity to show how redundant and stupid it is to do so.

In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change. The changes that occur are simply the result of variation within that genetic code. In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code. Unless you can point me to a (reliable) source other than wikipedia proving that such a thing has in fact been observed, I have no reason to put my faith in the theory.

" it has become quite clear to me how ignorant many evolutionists are, and similarly, how ignorant many creationists are too"

That, we can both agree on.

" that may have become a scientific law... "

Theories do not become laws. Laws are a summarized description of a apparently universal phenomenon, often in a mathematical form. Theories explain said phenomenon using available data. One does not turn into the other.

"Creationism can be tested and is just as valid a theory as evolutionism"

Please do tell about a falsifiable test that may be done or was done for Creationism. I'm yet to hear about one.

"In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change."

False. Mutations happen which change the genetic code. The only way your affirmation would be true is if the only thing that happens was changes in the genetic frequencies. Considering that is relatively easy for a gene with low frequency to disappear, even without mutation you can have genetic change.

"In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code" It was added in microevolution. I'm not sure what you mean with creating a new genetic code, this sounds like you are going the way of the crocoduck. Explain and I might rise to your challenge.

" in fact there has been a lot of dissension between evolutionists on the topic" Gasp! Say it isn't so! is almost like science works by arguing and showing evidence of your viewpoint! And here I was thinking Evolution was some kind of dogma.... Oh, wait! My mistake. That's how science works.

"People who want to bite each other's heads off over the issue can go ahead and do so" That sounds unhygienic.

hypotheses that, after being tested and tested become more valid (basically, gaining in credibility), can eventually become a theory. A Theory (basically a refined and more credible hypothesis), after being tested and tested and tested over a very long period of time can become what is known as a scientific law (an extremely well-refined and credible theory, usually considered accurate enough to consider truthful). This is what happened during the days spontaneous generation, and how it continues to work today - though generally without the total upheaval of a concept believed for thousands of years. Up until the 1600's it was just considered a given fact that life could spontaneously generate, seemingly out of nothing. Up until the time it was completely blown out of the water, it was an ok guess due to the fact that prior scientists lacked the equipment and capabilities that Louis Pasteur did (and didn't fully understand the concept of a clean experimental area...).

For creationism there are actually quite a few arguments being engaged in, though there are only a few I can name off the top of my head:

Cambrian explosion + inconsistent geological collumn

Common design vs. common ancestors

Lack of transitional forms

Earth core - dynamo theory vs. rapid decay theory.

Plate tectonics

"""False. Mutations happen which change the genetic code. The only way your affirmation would be true is if the only thing that happens was changes in the genetic frequencies. Considering that is relatively easy for a gene with low frequency to disappear, even without mutation you can have genetic change."""

That's only assuming you're talking about one form or type of evolutionary change though. Some believe in punctuated equilibrium, others believe in gradualism. I think there are a couple other ones too. All of them have different interpretations as to how exactly a *mutation* happens. Regardless, mutations beneficial (nonetheless non-lethal) to an organism that also cross into trans-species territory have never actually been observed in nature (again, unless you can provide a reliable source). Only rare exceptions have been made in laboratories, like the Vacanti mouse.

As I've stated once - when you come up against a thorough creationist (ie. someone who has actually done his homework and retained all of it, unlike myself) you'll have your work cut out for you. So far as I see, it's a lost cause for me to try reasoning with you, particularly based on my lack of recollection.

Also, Alzebet is the one who made the thread, and consequently the one I originally, specifically replied to.

For what is worth I think you're a smart kid. Pity that you're wrong on this subject.

Your understanding of what evolution is and what evolution actually is are two different things. Doesn't surprise me, that's common among Creationist as many notorious Creationists rather mock a strawman than actually engage in argument (see crocoduck, peanut-butter "the atheist nightmare", anything by Dr. Dino...).

If you ever feel up to the challenge read an introductory book on the subject written by a biologist, or check Wikipedia or evowiki . At least you'll get a better idea of what evolution is.

And you're Catholic? You know that the Church sees no problem with evolution, right? Here: [link]

Nope. Theories do not graduate into law, that's a common piece of creationist misinformation. You can check wikipedia on that, or any reliable source of info that is not creationist.

Here: [link] an explanation by a biology professor. Feel free to google around, I'd be surprised if you'd find anyone but creationists using your definition.

"For creationism there are actually quite a few arguments being engaged in" Not what I asked. Pick any of those arguments a propose a falsifiable test that was or may be done. This means any test that if your "theory" were not to pass it would invalidate your argument. A theory that has no fail mode is a useless theory and not acceptable in science.

An example: I claim I have a dragon in my living room. You propose a test, go and see the dragon. I say the dragon is invisible. Touch? Untouchable. Heat? Its flame has no heat, nor its body... At a given point the "theory" of the dragon in the room is discarded because there is no way to check if it is false. Show me that creationism is not a dragon.

"That's only assuming you're talking about one form or type of evolutionary change" And this is false, again. Punctuated equilibrium accepts microevolution and new genetic info, it just says that most of the time it enacts little change and only so often there's a quick (read a few thousands of years) speciation event. I'm pretty sure these days punctuated equilibrium is seen as a variation of gradualism and not a different process.

This leaves the question of why bring it up. And I have the growing suspicion that you think that macroevolution involves animals sprouting random member out of nothing or strange chimeras like the crocoduck. If you do, I can assure you that your reading time would have been better spent reading evolution for dummies or any other introductory book that was written by actual biologists.

So, if you could clarify your position on this last point it would be appreciated.

how is evolution possible when evidence suggests we are devolving not evolving?

Ie organs we used to use are no longer capable of working, our apendex for example. and on top of it our jaws are slowly becoming smaller. the reason we have our wisdom teeth removed.

second, the universe is constantly expanding. like a ripple affect on water. If this is true why has nothing moved as far as our position in alignment with the stars far away from us? we are still using the same stars, in the same position we did a thousand years ago.

third the western civilizations laws are based off christian beliefs and laws. If you like the fact that rape, murder, theft is illegal you should show a little more respect for the laws that created the concept.

We used our appendix to digest things like bark from trees. People have evolved because we no longer eat things like bark. Same with the bigger jaws thing. We don't need them because our diets have changed so drastically.

Well, I wouldn't really consider it "devolving," because that implies evolution is about progress, which it is not. Wisdom teeth and appendixes served a function in the past, but as we adapted to a different diet and enviornment we no longer needed them, but of course we still had them. We simply began to lose their function and adapt to the new enviornment in other ways.

~alzebetha explained this one better than I could. Physics isn't really my thing.

Laws and morality existed in societies long before Christianity, and there are things acceptable in times of Christianity that would be abhorrent today. Also, many Christians accept evolution while still respecting their own religion.

First: Good thinking but you confuse redundancy with regression. the purpose of appendix was for plant eating and digesting of grass, the purpose of the wisdom teeth enhanced meateating.

As we evolved those things became redundant, similiarly you could claim that hairy dudes disprove evolution and that shaving was invented by god.

Second: If a car moves at 60 mph and you move with 60 mph and you both move in the same direction does it seem as if your position changes much? exactly, this is bullshit.

third:AHAHAHAHAHAAA A good one. nice you mention rape, read this and rejoice in the fact it does not really guide our morals, just some christians think it does:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

"First: Good thinking but you confuse redundancy with regression. the purpose of appendix was for plant eating and digesting of grass, the purpose of the wisdom teeth enhanced meateating."

actually the purpose of the wisdom teeth was to replace the space created in the mouth which was a result of eating rough food like leaves and sand. nothing to do with meat. meat-eating enchancing tooth are the ones that are sharp. wisdom teeth are for crushing.

"As we evolved those things became redundant, similiarly you could claim that hairy dudes disprove evolution and that shaving was invented by god."

the hairy dudes hair have nothing to do with the fur we used to have. learn these simple things please.

"Second: If a car moves at 60 mph and you move with 60 mph and you both move in the same direction does it seem as if your position changes much? exactly, this is bullshit."

evolution is not a gradual improvement. its just change and natural selection. adapting to the environment. you can evolve amazing legs but if the world is suddenly soaked under the water a simple, undeveloped winged creature will survive whereas you dont. so you are just trying to see an organized velocity in a demolition derby here.

"third:AHAHAHAHAHAAA A good one. nice you mention rape, read this and rejoice in the fact it does not really guide our morals, just some christians think it does:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"

I love when people talk about money XDOne name comes to mind maybe 2:The Vatican and Dubai.

So my lack of knoledge makes me one step under, and proves the natural selection thing? Ok... Explain me the event horizon theory considered by modern physicists, the modern behaviorism, cold fusion, the Siria riots, the economical situation of Argentina after the pope eletcion... ^^